[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lisp performance was Re: problems with lisp

To: Guy Steele - Sun Microsystems Labs <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lisp performance was Re: problems with lisp
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <address@hidden>
Date: 04 Sep 2003 14:38:48 -0400
Cc: address@hidden
In-reply-to: <200309041734.h84HYkP09113@sydney.East.Sun.COM>
References: <200309041734.h84HYkP09113@sydney.East.Sun.COM>
Sender: address@hidden
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2

Guy Steele - Sun Microsystems Labs <Guy.Steele@sun.com> writes:
> P.S. Yes, per Pascal Costanza, Common Lisp with proper tail
> recursion and call/cc WOULD be a better language.

Quick question -- was the decision to make CL have separate function
and variable bindings mostly for compatibility with mac lisp and lisp
machine lisp, or was it something deeper philosophically? I find
scheme's lisp 1 semantics almost always more comprehensible and easier
to use...

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry@piermont.com

References:
- Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lisp performance was Re: problems with lisp
  - From: Guy Steele - Sun Microsystems Labs <Guy.Steele@sun.com>

Prev by Date: Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lisp performance was Re: problems with lisp
Next by Date: Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lisp performance was Re: problems with lisp
Previous by thread: Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lisp performance was Re: problems with lisp
Next by thread: Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lisp performance was Re: problems with lisp
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread